Evidences given for a young-earth

[shunyadragon]

In other words you can't show us an example of how pre 70 million year old samples are dated with NO radioactive decay methods. Yet you feel a compulsion to toss the word 'know' around as if you had some connection to it. Ok.

To know in science is to falsify by scientific methods using objective verifiable evidence, and it is not 'know' in an absolute sense.

Religious agendas are not science. There is no objective verifiable evidence for a supernatural Creation.

 

[shunyadragon]

In other words you can't show us an example of how pre 70 million year old samples are dated with NO radioactive decay methods. Yet you feel a compulsion to toss the word 'know' around as if you had some connection to it. Ok.

Not OK.

To know in science is to falsify by scientific methods using objective verifiable evidence, and it is not 'know' in an absolute sense.

Religious agendas are not science. There is no objective verifiable evidence for a supernatural Creation.

 

[dad]

To know in science is to falsify by scientific methods using objective verifiable evidence, and it is not 'know' in an absolute sense.

Religious agendas are not science. There is no objective verifiable evidence for a supernatural Creation.

Thanks for that old parrot act. We all need a laugh.

 

[dad]

Not OK.

To know in science is to falsify by scientific methods using objective verifiable evidence, and it is not 'know' in an absolute sense.

Religious agendas are not science. There is no objective verifiable evidence for a supernatural Creation.

Can you give an example of how pre 70 million year old samples are dated with NO radioactive decay methods? Otherwise stop claiming it.

 

[shunyadragon]

Can you give an example of how pre 70 million year old samples are dated with NO radioactive decay methods? Otherwise stop claiming it.

To know in science is to falsify by scientific methods using objective verifiable evidence, and it is not 'know' in an absolute sense.

Religious agendas are not science. There is no objective verifiable evidence for a supernatural Creation.

 

[dad]

To know in science is to falsify by scientific methods using objective verifiable evidence, and it is not 'know' in an absolute sense.

Religious agendas are not science. There is no objective verifiable evidence for a supernatural Creation.

Your claimed same nature in the past cannot be falsified. Beliefs are like that. Your house is built on sand.

 

[shunyadragon]

Your claimed same nature in the past cannot be falsified. Beliefs are like that. Your house is built on sand.

To know in science is to falsify by scientific methods using objective verifiable evidence, and it is not 'know' in an absolute sense.

Religious agendas are not science. There is no objective verifiable evidence for a supernatural Creation.

 

[dad]

To know in science is to falsify by scientific methods using objective verifiable evidence, and it is not 'know' in an absolute sense.

Religious agendas are not science. There is no objective verifiable evidence for a supernatural Creation.

Your claimed state in the past is not falsifiable.

 

[shunyadragon]

Your claimed state in the past is not falsifiable.

To know in science is to falsify by scientific methods using objective verifiable evidence, and it is not 'know' in an absolute sense.

Religious agendas are not science. There is no objective verifiable evidence for a supernatural Creation.

 

[PruePhillip]

Is this your belief? Well. it has nothing to do with how science views the universe.



Selfish logic of circular reason to justify what one believes

Sorry, just trying to be SPECIFIC here.

 

[PruePhillip]

The burning issue of the first century AD was Roman oppression.. The Sermon on the Mount is about shaming your enemies.

Jesus wasn't a threat to the Romans. The Jews were divided into five factions.. fighting each other and the Romans.

The "argument" that Jesus was a political person never quite goes
away. But it can't make any headway either. Herod's secret police
would have watched this early Christian movement carefully, so
too did the Romans.
"Rendering unto Caesar" means precisely that - you give to Rome
what is required by Roman law. It's a very clever answer to the
Jewish question of whether they should give tribute to Caesar,
isn't it? In fact you will find ALL of the answers Jesus gave to
people to be incredibly deep and simple - like the man himself.

 

[dad]

To know in science is to falsify by scientific methods using objective verifiable evidence, and it is not 'know' in an absolute sense.

Religious agendas are not science. There is no objective verifiable evidence for a supernatural Creation.

Thanks for the repetition. Keep it up so people can clearly see what sort of debater you are, and what your case looks like.

 

[shunyadragon]

We are not talking about independent methods, the study was about calibrating C14 clocks. Both the C14 and the “couting of layers” is based on the assumption that these are annual records, if the assumption is wrong both C14 and counting would be wrong.

The problem with this concerning lake lamela is that they are falsified as annual by direct observation of each layer forming in recent history, and older lamela are physically and chemically exactly like those forming today. There is absolutely no evidence of lake lamela formin any other way.

The study simply exposes a weakness of radiometric dating, apparently one has to calibrate the clocks prior to using the dating technique, and while it is possible to calibrate “clocks” that are a few thousand years old, who has ever calibrated clocks that are millions of years old? If the ratio of C14-C12 is not constant as the study shows, what makes you think that the ratio of the different isotopes Argon has always been constant? (the implication is that if the ratio of argon has not been constant, then the Ar-Ar dating method wouldn’t work).

The IF assumptions you assert have no basis in any of the evidence, and is only base don a hypothetical 'arguing from ignorance,' without any direct observable evidence to justify the IFs you assert. Carbon 14 radiometric dating does not go back millions of years. C14 dating has been confirmed with the direct comparisons with lake lamela counting for the full range of C14 possible dating. Yes, multiple dating methods do confirm the dating millions of years

+ the fact that my argument is not that we never have examples of independent verification, my arguments that fossils are usually not dated by multiple independent methods, and I supported the assertion with a source. ¿do you have a source that suggests otherwise?....It is specially rare to have independent verification with fossils that are millions of years old.

Much of your argument is arguing from ignorance of 'What IF? possibilities totally without any evidence to support your assertions. Can you provide any evidence for your negative assertions as to what maybe have been the conditions in the past that are different than today?

Statements concerning 'what is usually dated by multiple independent methods' is a subjective anecdotal claim, because it is a fact that the major peer reviewed research concerning fossils and strata are dated by multiple methods as a requirement for verifying the dates of the fossils and strata.

 

[shunyadragon]

Thanks for the repetition. Keep it up so people can clearly see what sort of debater you are, and what your case looks like.

The reason for the repetitions is that your view of science and responses do not deserve anything more. You reject science and scientific methods based on a religious agenda therefore any other responses would be fruitless.

 

[shunyadragon]

Sorry, just trying to be SPECIFIC here.

Other than what you believe how is your responses are more specific.

 

[PruePhillip]

Other than what you believe how is your responses are more specific.

Can't make head nor tail of this.
The poem is good though.
I love good language and smart words

 

[dad]

The reason for the repetitions is that your view of science and responses do not deserve anything more. You reject science and scientific methods based on a religious agenda therefore any other responses would be fruitless.

No wind in the sails eh? Keep on spamming and doing mindless repetitions then. If you come out of the foxhole with an actual argument it may not be pretty!

 

[Subduction Zone]

No wind in the sails eh? Keep on spamming and doing mindless repetitions then. If you come out of the foxhole with an actual argument it may not be pretty!

It appears that others recognize the fact that you are the spammer here. All it would take for you to earn some respect is to try to justify your beliefs some day.

 

[shunyadragon]

No wind in the sails eh? Keep on spamming and doing mindless repetitions then. If you come out of the foxhole with an actual argument it may not be pretty!

To know in science is to falsify by scientific methods using objective verifiable evidence, and it is not 'know' in an absolute sense.

Religious agendas are not science. There is no objective verifiable evidence for a supernatural Creation.

 

[shunyadragon]

Can't make head nor tail of this.
The poem is good though.
I love good language and smart words

Good language and smart words are not specific.